Letting parents vote with their feet on school choice doesn't add
up

Other related coverage

So we now have desperate parents attempting to bribe teachers to
get their children into a selective high school. What a sad
indictment of our education policies, the holy grail of which is
parental choice.

Julia Gillard, the federal education minister, is about to
enshrine such choice in her brave new era of transparency and
accountability, allowing parents to "vote with their feet" if they
do not like the way their child's school is performing. The trouble
with choice, as anyone who has worked in advertising as long as I
have can tell you, is everybody tends to "choose" the same thing;
in this case, the same "prestigious" schools. This leads anxious
parents to go to desperate lengths to get their child into the
"right" school. The competition becomes intense, giving some
schools choice over students, rather than many parents choice over
schools.

As marketers have long understood, nothing is more desirable
than the hard-to-get, and nothing is less desirable than that open
to everyone. This bears no relation to quality, it is simply how
clever marketers drive and manipulate human desire.

Imagine where this leaves average comprehensive public schools,
open to any child of school age. The herd mentality among parents
has always existed but it is shocking that government policy
supports and enhances the choice of some parents, while ignoring
the effects on the educational opportunities of some children,
particularly those from less fortunate families.

We can see the results in Britain, much further down the
accountability/transparency road than Australia. Recently police
were called when 1500 students and parents turned up at Wallington
County Grammar School to compete for 126 year 7 places. In Sydney's
eastern suburbs, out-of-area parents camp overnight in the
playgrounds of desirable public primary schools to get their
children an advantageous spot on the waiting list. As the economic
downturn bites, expect this to get worse. Combine high demand with
limited supply of "desirable" schools, and choice can only increase
anxiety. With a generation of parents more obsessed and neurotic
about their children's future than any before, bribery is likely to
be the least of it.

As it is government policy to subsidise and extol parents who
purchase an educational advantage for their children, it is not
surprising that the bribing parents became confused about the
acceptability of one action versus the criminal nature of the
other.

Worse, government policy exacerbates a growing trend in modern
parenting. Parents now have fewer children and more money to spend
on them. The resulting narcissism that passes for much parenting is
disturbing. It seems every child is gifted and talented these days,
a little genius. No doubt some children really are gifted and
talented and good luck to them. They will need it, as their parents
are often already madly fantasising about their future achievements
and their own (reflected) glory. We used to call such parents
pushy, or stage mothers, and rather sensibly disapproved of them.
Now it's almost considered irresponsible to assume your kids are
just kids, no better and no worse than any other. It's almost as
if, in this achievement-oriented culture, you couldn't possibly
love just an ordinary child.

No wonder, when it comes to education, an ordinary public school
just doesn't cut it anymore. If the children are special, the
school must be special too. If not selective, then the most
expensive private school the family can afford, all in the name of
choice. It's easy to understand how those who have little choice,
because their child is not as gifted as they had hoped and they
can't afford to buy specialness, could be led into temptation.

In the push for academic achievement, tragically, we seem to
have lost our common sense. There is something pitiable about
parents desperate enough to offer bribes just so their child
doesn't have to go to the local school, particularly as evidence
suggests it is unnecessary. Repeated studies have shown students
from comprehensive public schools outperform both their selective
and private school peers by the end of their first year at
university. Ordinary schools - despite the propaganda - must be
doing something right.

After more than 20 years as a parent, there are only two things
I know for sure. Your children, no matter how gifted and talented,
will disappoint you. And you, no matter how devoted a parent you
may be, will disappoint your children. So can we all just relax,
and love one another, warts, ordinary old public schools, and
all?

Jane Caro is co-author of The Stupid Country: How Australia
Is Dismantling Public Education.

Other related coverage

1229189440012-smh.com.auhttp://www.smh.com.au/news/opinion/letting-parents-vote-with-their-feet-on-school-choice-doesnt-addup/2008/12/14/1229189440012.htmlsmh.com.auSydney Morning Herald2008-12-15Letting parents vote with their feet on school choice doesn't add
upJane CaroOpinionhttp://www.smh.com.au/news/opinion/asian-values-are-no-bad-thing-in-the-classroom/2008/12/12/1228585112676.htmlAsian values are no bad thing in the classroomtext/html-document